decoration decoration
Stories

GROKLAW
When you want to know more...
decoration
For layout only
Home
Archives
Site Map
Search
About Groklaw
Awards
Legal Research
Timelines
ApplevSamsung
ApplevSamsung p.2
ArchiveExplorer
Autozone
Bilski
Cases
Cast: Lawyers
Comes v. MS
Contracts/Documents
Courts
DRM
Gordon v MS
GPL
Grokdoc
HTML How To
IPI v RH
IV v. Google
Legal Docs
Lodsys
MS Litigations
MSvB&N
News Picks
Novell v. MS
Novell-MS Deal
ODF/OOXML
OOXML Appeals
OraclevGoogle
Patents
ProjectMonterey
Psystar
Quote Database
Red Hat v SCO
Salus Book
SCEA v Hotz
SCO Appeals
SCO Bankruptcy
SCO Financials
SCO Overview
SCO v IBM
SCO v Novell
SCO:Soup2Nuts
SCOsource
Sean Daly
Software Patents
Switch to Linux
Transcripts
Unix Books
Your contributions keep Groklaw going.
To donate to Groklaw 2.0:

Groklaw Gear

Click here to send an email to the editor of this weblog.


Contact PJ

Click here to email PJ. You won't find me on Facebook Donate Paypal


User Functions

Username:

Password:

Don't have an account yet? Sign up as a New User

No Legal Advice

The information on Groklaw is not intended to constitute legal advice. While Mark is a lawyer and he has asked other lawyers and law students to contribute articles, all of these articles are offered to help educate, not to provide specific legal advice. They are not your lawyers.

Here's Groklaw's comments policy.


What's New

STORIES
No new stories

COMMENTS last 48 hrs
No new comments


Sponsors

Hosting:
hosted by ibiblio

On servers donated to ibiblio by AMD.

Webmaster
Revised printed version | 627 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
The printed version
Authored by: rsteinmetz70112 on Thursday, November 01 2012 @ 12:19 PM EDT
If it says the same thing as the web site it could be very interesting.

---
Rsteinmetz - IANAL therefore my opinions are illegal.

"I could be wrong now, but I don't think so."
Randy Newman - The Title Theme from Monk

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

The printed version
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, November 01 2012 @ 04:09 PM EDT
The printed version (at least the version on page 4 of the FT) is just the two
paragraphs they were required to publish. One about the original ruling and the
other about the appeal. No added stuff.

So basically, what they should have done on the website in the first place.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Revised printed version
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, November 05 2012 @ 03:52 AM EST

They've run the advert again this week, but there's a significant difference. Last week's advert could have been posted by anyone, nowhere on it did it mention Apple as the source. This week there is a new sentence at the foot of the advert "A notice issued by Apple Inc. pursuant to court ruling"

Finally, I think they've actually managed to do what the court asked for in the first place. I wonder whether the judge has nudged them further after the first 'anonymised' set of adverts or if they just realised the oversight and corrected it spontaneously.

I uploaded a photo of the revised advert for comparison with the previous one.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Groklaw © Copyright 2003-2013 Pamela Jones.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners.
Comments are owned by the individual posters.

PJ's articles are licensed under a Creative Commons License. ( Details )